From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AB1AEAFA for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743639137; cv=none; b=T+upQv5yUaOCv4+o/F238nDElIDiHeGu9w3wDzUZrGPONiHyGqWFYDG4/WoNQkMdG5CaJteC7A5PYC5TXpma+I3M9K5p0iP+gFH1dVeqcWQYYFX2tPureAhfwcheLG58cTtteOL0ahSL2b+RZLyINfAfr3zUoLenQOHvUE4Vyvk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743639137; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yYEUFJvayMaVPcBXwisOfoqVVEHY86bh8nXTTcnjJmU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RkHIfPq1jhnSqjNoC7Mnaii56lWKVI4w7KinpBBhG2KzupArGSlmU6RJYQs1WTsPMzv3/X6sS8+LmEiw8YLtTZT7lqbrPy2HLslsU9mCnFogqs5yyVCRskHaLbXmX1dbvIfGjpXe3NiakL30ez/wmypYCd6utYG6NOaTFyMV/v0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pHRWMCWl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="pHRWMCWl" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58003C4CEDD; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:12:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1743639134; bh=yYEUFJvayMaVPcBXwisOfoqVVEHY86bh8nXTTcnjJmU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pHRWMCWlMO079XLLQKc5yt8SbGUf1lHKZpqeRoC8wM5t2vv/+VziHknmgebCyLl3b gEqr0DJiN2vTT4ndKV+zfjEKErP/xYlIJhEgU0pWN6tBWc3RmsBS5fPhhEbqqpDjDF tzI7IUw9j3xicavOEhAHYDSYUtG42cE0tlYnjY/9Z49ziGC4x1fJzCtcBNjpmP/f1T 0DPe3a2YM3g8TRuR51slTER55fG8fQs+AQQtHayUWuX1kI20BoYxpE3q4mLluiRr5w UOYpQqRpbNY0/JLh+7NjhC2FBIWjyQXf72J1P1KpTPzRWZUfPT0IdPGjD9Syz7wfao tFgbQ8I6iiD7w== Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:12:13 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Stanislav Fomichev Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, Cosmin Ratiu Subject: Re: [PATCH net v5 02/11] net: hold instance lock during NETDEV_REGISTER/UP Message-ID: <20250402171213.10f809d6@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20250402170220.4619a783@kernel.org> References: <20250401163452.622454-1-sdf@fomichev.me> <20250401163452.622454-3-sdf@fomichev.me> <20250402170220.4619a783@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:02:20 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Is there a reason we don't hold the instance lock over > unlist_netdevice() in unregister_netdevice_many_notify() > but we do here? We need a separate fix for that.. I deleted too much here. I meant to say that we need a fix for netns changing while netdev_get_by_index_lock() is grabbing the device. > but this series is big enough already. Unless there's > a reason I think we should be consistent and not lock > over the listing?